Science (ssss) vs. Religion

( science ) is a description of the cause / effect nature of the physical environment
( religion ) is a description of the cause / effect nature of how we interact as humans and why

they do not describe the same thing, therefore any argument between the two about which is MORE right-er-er than the other, is a failure to understand the point of the framing tools,

and is a reflection that the ‘right-er-er’ stance stems from a deeper issue, one that is easily identified if the history of both framing devices is viewed in terms of how they have co-existed.

consider, ID, intelligent design, it represents a fusion of science and religion to prove the un-provable, to make religion just as logical as science. has anyone taken a second to consider the theories? man… they stretch for relevancy.

ID is a direct response to the scientific communities taunt, ‘Prove it!”, therefore is not relevant when the core truth is examined as the motivation for its creation was found as a way to argue a point that has no end due to its illogical nature.

humans have an avid ability to return to stupidity, to which avail is often hard to answer for. as we are born copiers, our potentials are often sighted in the limitations of others, and require that ever so fleeting instance of desire. thus, truth is in response to our insatiable, survival-prone mind, we in a sense ‘crave’ it somewhat. to conquer our sanity, to stifle our beliefs and make the most of the scientific literature is as a result of this desire: it is therefore its own form of faith, one that assumes that said truth, or an absolute truth is in fact attainable (its not). there appears, as a result of our evolutionary disposition to perpetual unrest and feelings of mediocrity, a necessity to chase perfection, the ideal, the sublime, the inconceivable, the divinely beautiful. the problem however resides in our inability to pierce the veil of idolatry, to avoid deifying those who baffle or perplex us with remarkable talents or great insight, and the tendency to extrapolate to the assumption that they have somewhat of a godly conception and understanding of life, when in reality they are no more then harborers of often relatively unremarkable, mortal feats. all is justifiable in love, but when considering who we should believe in and inevitably pretend to be, avoid naivety and the flock at all costs (I say).

oo for sure, but, science cannot teach man how to drive very well yet bc many areas were grown as a direct response to the religion argument, therefore science automatically sees religion as useless, nothing to learn from them, when religion is science’s forerunner, and when taken metaphorically, handles human nature better than what is traditionally taught through science

I agree that the supernatural parts of the religion should be considered as metaphor and can be very destructive when considered literally

Drugs are the religion of the twenty-first century. Pursuing the religious life today without using psychedelic drugs is like studying astronomy with the naked eye because that’s how they did it in the first century A.D., and besides telescopes are unnatural. I mean, at one point consciousness-altering devices like the microscope and telescope were criminalized for exactly the same reasons that psychedelic plants were banned in later years. They allow us to peer into bits and zones of Chaos.

I agree to a degree, but drugs tend to worsen the problem if used often, as the problem is emotional understanding, something drugs can heighten in terms of awareness, but after frequent use, can repress

religion puts a supernatural explanation to our emotions, and though this is incorrect, does a great job framing the reality of the issue if considered metaphorically.

drugs offer enlightenment, for sure, i know this be true myself, but, drugs are only a temporary answer that can easily become the problem.

also, drugs have been around for millennia, the use is just more commonly known now, and in fact have perpetuated religious thinking in some cultures, sects, therefore the answer is not in the drugs, it is the person using them, and can be found without

one must first realize that they do not know before they can begin to understand

and from this truth, i become like water and can view the religion / science debate from outside the circumstances that spawned them, and therefore put religion / science into context, which is they are both ways to explain reality, different realities, using different proofs and story telling methods in their approach, both inaccurate / incomplete in their own ways, therefore neither should be placed as absolute over the other, as,

this is not the point of either. the point is to understand and evolve, not understand then stagnate over ego

@tine, So it appears that when you think of religion you think of Christianity. Romans “used” Christianity to gain power over the people. Adoption of pagan holidays is your proof? Seems like you are biased towards conspiracy. Perhaps the Christian God used the Romans to spread the faith. The Christians believe in a God that uses sinners to spread their faith. The majority of the Bible is written by Paul, a former Jew who killed Christians. By using him to spread the faith, God essential showed the world that God can change anyone. The Romans were full of horrible traditions, so God was like “Bet I can use your own traditions to worship me” BOOM thousands of years later people still celebrate Christmas as if Jesus was born and they completely forgot that it was originally a holiday where children were burned as sacrifices to a false god.

Do you know the names of any of those false gods? probably not unless your did some hard research. Notice how EVERYONE knows about the Christian God, whether they believe or not.

Btw i love your view on the past. I fucking hate having to rely on another person’s “knowledge” for information. But if I didn’t trust the “knowledge” of others I wouldn’t “know” anything. It’s one of life’s greatest problems, haha

@kwelch5528, You seem unable to look beyond the surface. The car scenerio was an analogy. Yes, physically teaching someone how to drive has nothing to do with religion. That’s why I premised the phrase with, “so, to use an analogy”.

@mfowler73, I like where your heads at. I believe I can agree. Quantum physics has opened up a whole new world where people can understand that “the man in the sky” might be a dumbed down version of saying what God truly is. Way back when, people couldn’t comprehend what we are exploring in science now, so they were satisfied with “the man in the sky” bit. Science is trying to explain God and people don’t realize that because they think science and God are enemies

One of the worst mistakes you can make in life is to attach your identity to any particular religion or philosophy, such as by saying “I am a Christian” or “I am a Buddhist.” This forces your mind into a fixed perspective, robbing you of spiritual depth perception and savagely curtailing your ability to perceive reality accurately. If that sounds like a good idea to you, you’ll probably want to gouge out one of your eyeballs too. Surely you’ll be better off with a single, fixed perspective instead of having to consider two separate image streams… unless of course you’ve become attached to stereo vision.

Religions are authoritarian hierarchies designed to dominate your free will. They’re power structures that aim to convince you to give away your power for the benefit of those who enjoy dominating people. When you subscribe to a religion, you enroll in a mindless minion training program. Religions don’t market themselves as such, but this is essentially how they operate.

Blessed are the poor (donate heavily). Blessed are the meek (obey). Blessed are the humble (don’t question authority). Blessed are the hungry (make us rich while you starve). Blessed are the merciful (if you catch us doing something wrong, let it go). Blessed are the pure of heart (switch off your brain). Blessed are the timid, the cowardly, the fearful. Blessed are those who give us their power and become our slaves. Muahahaha!

That’s the kind of nonsense religion pushes on people. They train you to turn your back on courage, strength, and conscious living. This is stupidity, not divinity.

perhaps, but the reality is, my conjecture is no more wrong then anyone elses with an opposing view, there is a distinct possibility that when Christianity went through the transformation at the counsel of nicea, elements were added and subjected. To lump the logic of what I say under a ‘conspiracy theory’ tag is to discredit without true consideration,

the logic I use, the main logic, is this,

“Believing Jesus is the only way to God, because, “Jesus said so”, has been one the greatest dividing lines in global history and has been more at the center of war, rape, torture, and persecution in general than almost any other collective Idea out there.

So, by believing that Jesus is the son God and is the only way to God, I respond to reality in the opposite of the example he set.

This contradiction doesn’t make sense to me…. unless the divinity part was added.”

there is a clear / black and white contradiction between how Jesus ‘was’ and what happens when ‘what he says about his divinity’ is applied.

(@tine) the role of religion was to explain what then could not be explained. we as a species must sop clinging to old wives tales of angels and demons and what not. religion has some real good things that it preaches but it then goes ahead and contradicts itself in horrible ways. theres no evidence what so ever that these things happened. God if he or she is real is extremely incompetent and a murderer as well as jealous and a slave owner. he also doesnt care very for women. and i beg for someone to explain the devil to if angels were created to serve and have no free will how can they rebel against the creator. and why would he torcher those who are like him. which brings me to this question did god tell him to do it and if yes then hes a good guy rite smh its confusing.

those examples are more a reflection of the personality type taking in the religion, just because there are extreme examples to be seen does not mean that they are the only outcome, this is a very limited view on the religion.

does it do what you say it does, yes, it can, and very easily.

but this is just the idiots misinterpreting it

there is great, great wisdom to be found once the 1 D ‘religion knows nothing’ perspective filter is dropped.

o, for sure, drop the supernatural, keep the human insight, I am here. the question is, are you one who is blinded by the supernatural making the wisdom unsee-able, or can you look past the nonsense and see the wisdom that actually has the potential to be life changing?

and it is not lifechanging because of the supernatural.

“but it then goes ahead and contradicts itself in horrible ways.”

no see, the core ideas never change, they are the same, it is man that contradicts itself in horrible ways… and this is not just limited to religion, but to all aspects of life.

here is what I think, the voices and impulses inside the head that are labelled as God / Satan, are simply the emotions the individual is feeling, and the supernatural reasoning here is, why can’t I control my impulses?

now, today, humans are aware enough to understand their emotions and the power they have over perception, therefore we no longer need to view it as supernaturally, it has and will continue to be, explained, and new systems will be developed

but, this being said, it doesn’t mean in the thousands of years of studying human emotion without a lot of social behaviors masking core impulses, religion hasn’t picked up on and presented a working model of the human condition.

also, consider the perspective of who was in charge, an emperor, who from birth was separated from society and was taught through example that he was superior to all man.

from birth

knowing no else, raised to rule

therefore reality was always explained to him in broad terms. he of all people understood how the ‘inferior’ acted, how to subjugate and control the unruly… this person fits the scenario of my thought to a T, he is a required element for a manipulation of this type, someone raised superior who holds great power without any real checks or balances.

consider this fact… “was Roman Emperor from 306 to 337”

he ruled for quite a long time, ruled a powerful nation in an uncivilized reality, we think the issues we deal with are tough today… regress humanity 2k years… yea…

this man has shown through action he commands the ability to see reality enough to survive at an unprecedented level.

To you it’s just a casual pursuit. You’re certainly not a die-hard fundamentalist, but you figure that if you drink the wine and chew the wafer now and then, it’s good enough to get you a free ride into a half-decent afterlife. You belong to the pro-God club. Surely there’s safety in numbers. Two people can’t be wrong… although 4-1/2 billion supposedly can.

In this case you become an apologist for your own religion. You don’t want to be identified with the extreme fanatics, nor do you want to be associated with the non-believers. You figure you can straddle both sides. On earth you’ll basically live as a non-practitioner (or a very sloppy and inconsistent practitioner), but when you eventually die, you’ve still got the membership card to show God.

I am only pointing out the logic that is apparent to anyone willing to consider it, I have no agenda but a need to point out the illogical nature of the argument between religion and science as the tools describe different ( types ) of reality, a physical reality and a social reality, respectively.

Ideas should not oppose ( absolutely ) because ideas are not real, they are simply framing devices for reality, NONE is ( absolute ) or ( complete )…ever, therefore none can come from an ( absolute ) position that the other is wrong, which is what the argument between science and religion represents.

I propose, neither is right, I propose, one spawned the other, they are part of the same thought process, therefore should not be in opposition but should evolve in tangent

the only thing we can understand is that we do not know, and go from here

consider the ( religious ) fundamentalists personality type. now consider the personality type of fundamentalists in ( general ),

are they not the ( exact same ), the only difference being the idea they use to interpret reality with?

The God that science has thus eliminated is called “the God of the gaps”–the God that was needed to explain the gaps in human knowledge. Over the centuries, science has progressively filled these gaps. Before Newton, people thought God moved the sun and moon through the heavens; now we understand their motion in terms of gravity. Before Darwin, it was believed that God created the many different species of life; now we account for them in terms of genetic evolution. Similarly with earthquakes, the aurora borealis and the immune response, today plate tectonics, solar ions and molecular biology explain them quite satisfactorily.

Steadily and mercilessly, science has filled the gaps. For a while it looked as if the most significant gap of all–the creation of the cosmos itself–would not be filled. But quantum mechanics is now explaining how even the Big Bang could have started all by itself. The God of the gaps has finally, it seems, been made redundant.

There is, however, more to religion than explaining the gaps in our knowledge. Most traditions also speak of the profound personal experiences that come from following a spiritual path. They may talk of them in terms of rebirth, liberation, awakening, enlightenment, transcendence, rapture or holy union. Yet whatever the interpretation, there is a general consensus that these experiences have a profound impact on one’s life.

Science has very little to say about spiritual experiences. They are not occurring in the world of space, time and matter that science charts so well, but in the world within. To understand them fully we would need to venture into the realm of “deep mind”–a realm that Western science has yet to explore.

you are basing this on an incomplete theory, a theory that cannot be proven by science, yet you know it is true. religion bases their belief on an incomplete theory, a theory that cannot be proven by science.

quantum theory is fun and exciting, but even the main theorist will keep it in perspective, their is still to much unexplained about it.

and even if they could explain it, here is what the religion will say, “You are simply observing the mechanics of God”, how do you argue this with any more authority than what you had previously? you have not proven anything, you simply have created a theory to explain the physical phenomena.

and the reason you cannot speak with any more authority, no matter what you find, is because, in the end, you and everyone else, were simply not there and cannot explain what started the big bang, I can always just keep asking, “what caused that… well what caused that.. well what caused that?” all day, every day, and eventually we’ll reach a point that, without having been there, there is noooo way to know.

so how do you beat them? you point how what they describe, the focus of religion is not to explain the physical reality around us but the explain the internal conflict within an individual, so that they can understand themselves and others around them.

the supernatural element here is man’s not-understanding of their emotions and how they effect how they perceive. the illogical format was done so that the general society could start to understand it

the supernatural was a useful tool to teach and motivate the uneducated and the ignorant

the supernatural also is a useful tool to deceive

notice the tool can be used for bad or good, the dependency is on the intentions of the user

Here’s is the point

( for science to argue religion’s validity based on their interpretation of reality is to give the religion validity within that realm )

why argue a useless point? all they are doing with all the time and energy spent arguing the pointlessness of religion is making religion seem like they might actually have a point… which is the opposite impression science wants…. but what they feed into every time they argue religion

the argument you cling to is the very reason why religion has not died off, by attacking you create an irrational emotional response within the confines of an illogical perspective, what do you expect the cause / effect to be, given the context? by creating an emotion you create an anchor, and by continuing you create a bunker

the main catalyst for the argument is ego, if it wasn’t, why is the logic I present not apparent?